Local climate skeptic Lou Johnson has been spreading his ignorance again, most recently in a letter to the Times Herald on 17 December. He's taken to task in today's (22 December) Times Herald by SC4 biologist David Webb, who correctly points out that Johnson is getting much of his misinformation from the discredited and erratic William Gray. In his retirement, Gray is going around the country arguing that global warming is a myth. For a solid, devastating rebuttal of Gray's nonsense see this page on the excellent Real Climate web site.
Another of Johnson's errors demands correction. This is the claim, routinely repeated by climate skeptics, that "in the 1970s, scientists were instead predicting another ice age." To begin with, there was no consensus in the '70s about an impending ice age, nothing like the nearly unanimous understanding today that warming is real and that it's anthropogenic. Johnson and his ilk like to make this claim because it suggests that scientists were wrong then and we therefore have no reason to take them seriously today. What happened was this: some scientists did suggest that a cooling trend might be beginning. Their predictions were tentative, and they did not reflect anything like a consensus among climate scientists. It in no way constituted a situation analogous to what we have today. Like everything else that Johnson and other climate skeptics say, this claim is misleading and irrelevant. Grist provides a good response to it.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Global Warming
The world is facing probably the greatest crisis in human history, and the Bush administration stubbornly refuses to admit it. The United Nations has convened a meeting of world leaders at Bali to try to work out a way to slow down the emissions of carbon dioxide that are warming the global climate, but the United States delegation is thwarting every attempt to reach an agreement. See this article in today's New York Times for the latest examples of American obstinacy. At this conference Vice President Al Gore told the delegates, “my own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali.”
Two points need emphasis.
First, the data showing a warming climate are unequivocal. So far, 2007 is the second warmest year on record (only 2005 was warmer). The last ten years are the warmest decade on record. No responsible climate scientist now denies that warming is occurring.
Second, the overwhelming consensus among atmospheric chemists, climatologists, and geophysicists is that human activity is a major cause of this warming. This is where the argument gets sticky. While climate skeptics now generally acknowledge the fact of warming, they like to throw out all sorts of red herrings about the cause. They say that solar variation explains warming, that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon is, that carbon build up follows rather than causes warming, that there's apparent warming on Mars. These claims--each containing a germ of truth--are all irrelevant and misleading, raised to cloud the ineluctable facts that carbon dioxide has been shown repeatedly to have a greenhouse effect and that levels of carbon dioxide have risen dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Scientists alarmed at the prospect of global warming all understand that warming can result from multiple causes, and they further understand that there's one cause of the current warming trend that we must do something about: that is emissions of carbon dioxide.
Two excellent web sites provide the necessary background for an informed awareness of global warming. Real Climate is an ongoing discussion among scientists about all aspects of climate change. Grist is an on-line magazine covering a wide range of environmental issues, with a terrific set of essays on "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic".
It's often said that the Bush-Cheney administration is beholden to corporate interests and routinely does the bidding of big business. This is only partly true, especially when we consider the list of American corporations that are pleading for our government to take climate change seriously, including General Electric, Sunoco, DTE, and DuPont, to name a few. The truth is that on this issue, at least, the administration is controlled by fossil fuel interests, especially big coal. Coal-burning power plants are the largest single source of atmospheric carbon, and the coal producing companies of this country do not want anything interfering with their obscene profits.
Global warming threatens our children and grandchildren with agricultural collapse, starvation, pestilence, drought and flood, possibly the end of civilization as we now enjoy it. The Bush-Cheney mafia are determined to ignore it as long as they are in office. But their days, finally, are numbered. We should be asking every candidate for federal and state office where s/he stands on this, the fundamental issue of our time. Any candidate without a firm, scientifically defensible position on the need for substantial reductions of carbon emissions does not deserve our vote.
And please go to this site to let the world know that Bush does not speak for you.
Two points need emphasis.
First, the data showing a warming climate are unequivocal. So far, 2007 is the second warmest year on record (only 2005 was warmer). The last ten years are the warmest decade on record. No responsible climate scientist now denies that warming is occurring.
Second, the overwhelming consensus among atmospheric chemists, climatologists, and geophysicists is that human activity is a major cause of this warming. This is where the argument gets sticky. While climate skeptics now generally acknowledge the fact of warming, they like to throw out all sorts of red herrings about the cause. They say that solar variation explains warming, that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon is, that carbon build up follows rather than causes warming, that there's apparent warming on Mars. These claims--each containing a germ of truth--are all irrelevant and misleading, raised to cloud the ineluctable facts that carbon dioxide has been shown repeatedly to have a greenhouse effect and that levels of carbon dioxide have risen dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Scientists alarmed at the prospect of global warming all understand that warming can result from multiple causes, and they further understand that there's one cause of the current warming trend that we must do something about: that is emissions of carbon dioxide.
Two excellent web sites provide the necessary background for an informed awareness of global warming. Real Climate is an ongoing discussion among scientists about all aspects of climate change. Grist is an on-line magazine covering a wide range of environmental issues, with a terrific set of essays on "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic".
It's often said that the Bush-Cheney administration is beholden to corporate interests and routinely does the bidding of big business. This is only partly true, especially when we consider the list of American corporations that are pleading for our government to take climate change seriously, including General Electric, Sunoco, DTE, and DuPont, to name a few. The truth is that on this issue, at least, the administration is controlled by fossil fuel interests, especially big coal. Coal-burning power plants are the largest single source of atmospheric carbon, and the coal producing companies of this country do not want anything interfering with their obscene profits.
Global warming threatens our children and grandchildren with agricultural collapse, starvation, pestilence, drought and flood, possibly the end of civilization as we now enjoy it. The Bush-Cheney mafia are determined to ignore it as long as they are in office. But their days, finally, are numbered. We should be asking every candidate for federal and state office where s/he stands on this, the fundamental issue of our time. Any candidate without a firm, scientifically defensible position on the need for substantial reductions of carbon emissions does not deserve our vote.
And please go to this site to let the world know that Bush does not speak for you.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Iraq: Getting it Right
In Friday's Times Herald, is a headline (no link available) about Iraq that suggests progress in that beleaguered country: "U.S. deaths in Iraq fall again: Refugees' return hailed as 'great victory.'" It would be wonderful if this were the whole story. All Americans would love to see that the sacrifices of American and Iraqi lives, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of American tax dollars, and the deterioration of America's reputation around the word had finally produced something positive. I say this here, up front, because it's become a routine talking point on the right to insist that those of us who opposed this war from the beginning wish for failure, that we are so relentless in our contempt for Bush-Cheney policies that we cannot accept, and even reject out of hand, evidence that those policies might be working. Nothing could be further from the case: we grieve for lives lost, and we hope for the establishment of a decent civil society in Iraq.
But we also are determined not to gloss over the truth and not to be fooled by superficial, incomplete stories such as the one in Friday's Times Herald. One place to start getting a more complete account of what's actually happening would be this article in Friday's New York Times: "Iraq unprepared as war refugees return." It turns out that the Times Herald, as usual, is reporting less than the whole tale. The putative lull in violence in Baghdad is largely explained by the fact that murderous militias have successfully eliminated their enemies from whole neighborhoods. Extensive parts of Baghdad that were mixed, with Shi'ites and Sunnis living side by side, have been ethnically cleansed, and U. S. field commanders are seriously worried that this moment of relative calm will quickly disappear when families driven from their homes try to return. The Iraqi government, such as it is, has no plan to deal with this potential catastrophe.
One reason the Iraqi authorities are so unprepared is the widespread corruption and criminal activity that permeate the Malaki government (click here). Remember that the Bush-Cheney "surge" was designed to give the Iraqi government breathing space to get its act together and actually govern? Rather than get the electricity grid functioning, the government has turned to extortion and theft.
While all Americans are grateful for any respite in the horrors brought to Iraq by the U.S. occupation, we should not be fooled into concluding that the Bush-Cheney gang finally has a plan. What's really happening is a constant lowering of expectations. Once upon a time in the Bush-Cheney fantasy world, the U. S. invasion was going to bring peace and democracy. Now, if they get the violence down for a month or two--though still to levels that should horrify us--they claim success, even though their own commanders in the field know that this illusion of stability is fragile and probably transient.
But we also are determined not to gloss over the truth and not to be fooled by superficial, incomplete stories such as the one in Friday's Times Herald. One place to start getting a more complete account of what's actually happening would be this article in Friday's New York Times: "Iraq unprepared as war refugees return." It turns out that the Times Herald, as usual, is reporting less than the whole tale. The putative lull in violence in Baghdad is largely explained by the fact that murderous militias have successfully eliminated their enemies from whole neighborhoods. Extensive parts of Baghdad that were mixed, with Shi'ites and Sunnis living side by side, have been ethnically cleansed, and U. S. field commanders are seriously worried that this moment of relative calm will quickly disappear when families driven from their homes try to return. The Iraqi government, such as it is, has no plan to deal with this potential catastrophe.
One reason the Iraqi authorities are so unprepared is the widespread corruption and criminal activity that permeate the Malaki government (click here). Remember that the Bush-Cheney "surge" was designed to give the Iraqi government breathing space to get its act together and actually govern? Rather than get the electricity grid functioning, the government has turned to extortion and theft.
While all Americans are grateful for any respite in the horrors brought to Iraq by the U.S. occupation, we should not be fooled into concluding that the Bush-Cheney gang finally has a plan. What's really happening is a constant lowering of expectations. Once upon a time in the Bush-Cheney fantasy world, the U. S. invasion was going to bring peace and democracy. Now, if they get the violence down for a month or two--though still to levels that should horrify us--they claim success, even though their own commanders in the field know that this illusion of stability is fragile and probably transient.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
More Bush Hypocrisy
Think Progress has a stunning article today illustrating further, as if we needed it, the truly mind-boggling hypocrisy of George W. Bush and his lackeys. Here are the horrifying details: A woman in Saudi Arabia was gang raped. For her crime (yes, our trusted ally in the GWOT, Saudi Arabia, declares that a raped woman is a criminal), she was sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in prison. Does the Bush administration have anything critical to say about this? Well, no. Did George Bush himself say the following in his second inaugural address: "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend…that women welcome humiliation and servitude."? Yes, he did.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Invading Iraq: What Have We Achieved?
* American Deaths: 3849
* Cost of the war: $465,730,004,018
* Documented Iraqi civilian deaths: 76,075 – 82,883
* Likely total civilian deaths: 1,099,372
* Iraqi refugees: over 4 million
(all the above as of 4 November 2007)
* Imminent war between Turkey and Iraqi Kurds
* Al Qaeda stronger, with more recruits, enhanced standing through the Islamic world
* Pakistan on the verge of civil war
* Iran's position in the Gulf strengthened
* Loss of American prestige around the world
* Loss of constitutional liberties
* Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture as official U. S. policy, civil war in Iraq
What has the U. S. invasion of Iraq NOT produced?
* Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, evidence that Iraq was in any way connected to 9/11, evidence that Iraq was a threat in any way to the U.S.
* Cost of the war: $465,730,004,018
* Documented Iraqi civilian deaths: 76,075 – 82,883
* Likely total civilian deaths: 1,099,372
* Iraqi refugees: over 4 million
(all the above as of 4 November 2007)
* Imminent war between Turkey and Iraqi Kurds
* Al Qaeda stronger, with more recruits, enhanced standing through the Islamic world
* Pakistan on the verge of civil war
* Iran's position in the Gulf strengthened
* Loss of American prestige around the world
* Loss of constitutional liberties
* Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture as official U. S. policy, civil war in Iraq
What has the U. S. invasion of Iraq NOT produced?
* Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, evidence that Iraq was in any way connected to 9/11, evidence that Iraq was a threat in any way to the U.S.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Islamofascism?
Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, a new morning show for Air America Radio. He was born a Muslim, has law and business degrees, and knows what he's talking about. Here's his take on the current neocon con, stirring up war hysteria about "Islamofascism." It's a must read, making three main points: the neocons and their allies are absurdly exaggerating the threat; "Islamofascism" is a nonsense, made-up word, calculated to elicit fear, but with no connection to political reality; fear of "Islamofascism" can lead (and is purposefully so designed) to loss of our constitutionally protected liberties, to accepting torture as a legitimate tool of American police work, and to illegal, unnecessary, counterproductive wars of choice. Please take a look.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Peace between Muslims and Christians
“Christians and Muslims reportedly make up over a third and over a fifth of humanity respectively. Together they may up more than 55% of the world’s population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace.”
This quotation comes from A Common Word between Us and You, an open letter signed by 138 Muslim scholars and leaders from around the world representing all branches of Islam. Their letter is addressed to the leaders of Christian churches everywhere, many of them listed by name. It discusses major features common to the two religions: belief in one God, the obligation to love God, and the obligation to love one’s neighbor. While not denying that Muslims and Christians differ over important issues of belief, A Common Word is careful to avoid giving offense to Christians. Instead it encourages both Christians and Muslims to follow their respective faiths more closely.
This letter is receiving positive responses from Christian leaders. For example, Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and president of the Lutheran World Federation, has this to say: “I acknowledge this letter in gratitude and recognition of the need for its further study and consideration. I likewise accept it in the belief that Jews, Muslims, and Christians are called to one another as to a holy site, where God's living revelation in the world is received in reverence among the faithful and not in fear of our neighbors.”
A Common Word between Us and You is a timely statement since the two faiths are frequently misrepresented and misunderstood, even by their own adherents. It is an important contribution to the respectful dialogue between Islam and Christianity now on the rise in many places. A Common Word deserves to be welcomed, not only by Christians and Muslims, but by all people of good will.
For a summary and abridgment of A Common Word, as well as the full text and other resources, see http://www.acommonword.com.
This quotation comes from A Common Word between Us and You, an open letter signed by 138 Muslim scholars and leaders from around the world representing all branches of Islam. Their letter is addressed to the leaders of Christian churches everywhere, many of them listed by name. It discusses major features common to the two religions: belief in one God, the obligation to love God, and the obligation to love one’s neighbor. While not denying that Muslims and Christians differ over important issues of belief, A Common Word is careful to avoid giving offense to Christians. Instead it encourages both Christians and Muslims to follow their respective faiths more closely.
This letter is receiving positive responses from Christian leaders. For example, Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and president of the Lutheran World Federation, has this to say: “I acknowledge this letter in gratitude and recognition of the need for its further study and consideration. I likewise accept it in the belief that Jews, Muslims, and Christians are called to one another as to a holy site, where God's living revelation in the world is received in reverence among the faithful and not in fear of our neighbors.”
A Common Word between Us and You is a timely statement since the two faiths are frequently misrepresented and misunderstood, even by their own adherents. It is an important contribution to the respectful dialogue between Islam and Christianity now on the rise in many places. A Common Word deserves to be welcomed, not only by Christians and Muslims, but by all people of good will.
For a summary and abridgment of A Common Word, as well as the full text and other resources, see http://www.acommonword.com.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Iran
As always, Juan Cole is right on the mark today in his analysis of the latest Bush-Cheney moves against Iran. Yesterday, the U. S. announced new sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and several Iranian banks. As Cole points out, this maneuver stinks of the usual Bush-Cheney hypocrisy. The administration accuses Iran of supporting terrorism, when that's just what the U. S. is doing with the Kurdish guerillas now attacking both Turkey and Iran (see here). The new sanctions completely ignore the complexities of Iranian politics and will probably have little effect. For an excellent assessment of what it all means, see this article in Asia Times.
A U S. strike against Iran is probably on the way. The neocons, led by Dick Cheney, appear determined to hit Iran before they leave office. Republicans are lining up with the usual rhetoric declaring Iran a major threat. None of it is true, but that doesn't seem to matter. Iran is many years away from nuclear capabilities and does not have a delivery system remotely capable of threatening the U. S. The evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency is thin--about as convincing as the evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction in 2002. In any case, the neocons never examine the fine points: the Iraqi insurgency is almost exclusively Sunni, historic enemies of Iranian Shi'ites. It is extremely unlikely that Iran or any of its clients would be providing arms to Sunni insurgents, who in fact are fighting against a Shi'ite government recognized and favored by Iran.
What really boggles the mind is the stunning incompetence of the neocons clamoring for war with Iran. That they are ideologically bizarre has been demonstrated repeatedly, but why does everything Cheney and his thugs do have to be so incredibly counter to U. S. interests? The occupation of Iraq has given al Qaeda new life; it has strengthened the Iranian position in the Gulf; it has strained the U. S. military to the point of collapse; it has destroyed U. S. credibility in the world community; it has run up a staggering debt. In no way has this debacle improved U. S. security. A strike against Iran would be more of the same. It will bolster the tenuous grip on power of the erratic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants nothing more than to lead Iran in a military conflict with the U. S. It will disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf. It will lead to much more dangerous circumstances for U. S. troops in Iraq. And it will probably lead to Iranian attacks on Israel. It could easily and quickly spiral out of control. Iran is capable of causing enormous damage--around the Gulf, in Iraq, in Israel, in Afghanistan. Do the neocons seriously think that Iran will simply change its ways and toe the U. S. line?
A military strike against Iran poses cataclysmic possibilities. It does nothing to make this country or its allies more secure. It would be the final move of a desperate administration unpopular at home and despised around the world.
A U S. strike against Iran is probably on the way. The neocons, led by Dick Cheney, appear determined to hit Iran before they leave office. Republicans are lining up with the usual rhetoric declaring Iran a major threat. None of it is true, but that doesn't seem to matter. Iran is many years away from nuclear capabilities and does not have a delivery system remotely capable of threatening the U. S. The evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency is thin--about as convincing as the evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction in 2002. In any case, the neocons never examine the fine points: the Iraqi insurgency is almost exclusively Sunni, historic enemies of Iranian Shi'ites. It is extremely unlikely that Iran or any of its clients would be providing arms to Sunni insurgents, who in fact are fighting against a Shi'ite government recognized and favored by Iran.
What really boggles the mind is the stunning incompetence of the neocons clamoring for war with Iran. That they are ideologically bizarre has been demonstrated repeatedly, but why does everything Cheney and his thugs do have to be so incredibly counter to U. S. interests? The occupation of Iraq has given al Qaeda new life; it has strengthened the Iranian position in the Gulf; it has strained the U. S. military to the point of collapse; it has destroyed U. S. credibility in the world community; it has run up a staggering debt. In no way has this debacle improved U. S. security. A strike against Iran would be more of the same. It will bolster the tenuous grip on power of the erratic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants nothing more than to lead Iran in a military conflict with the U. S. It will disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf. It will lead to much more dangerous circumstances for U. S. troops in Iraq. And it will probably lead to Iranian attacks on Israel. It could easily and quickly spiral out of control. Iran is capable of causing enormous damage--around the Gulf, in Iraq, in Israel, in Afghanistan. Do the neocons seriously think that Iran will simply change its ways and toe the U. S. line?
A military strike against Iran poses cataclysmic possibilities. It does nothing to make this country or its allies more secure. It would be the final move of a desperate administration unpopular at home and despised around the world.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
More Phony Soldiers?
Here's a link to a piece in the Washington Post, 16 October 2007, in which 12 former captains in the U.S. Army describe what's really happening in Iraq. How long will it be before Rush Limbaugh calls them "phony soldiers"? That's his term for any member of the military who dares to express independent views on this disaster (see here).
Friday, October 12, 2007
Al Gore's Nobel Prize
Al Gore, who was elected President of the United States in 2000 but denied the office by the United States Supreme Court, has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global climate change. The Nobel citation noted that he "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted” to slow down this cataclysmic threat to world peace and stability. The New York Times article on this award is here.
What will be interesting in the next few days--aside from the inevitable speculation on whether or not he will now decide to run for President--will be how the right-wing attack machine will go into full assault mode in its endless efforts to deny climate change and smear Gore personally. The temperature is rising, and the polar ice caps are melting, yet the well-funded climate skeptics, encouraged by the Bush-Cheney junta, will do anything to protect the interests of the fossil-fuel trust.
Global climate change is probably the most pressing issue in the dismal history of the human species. Among other things, it will disrupt agriculture, raise sea levels, cause mass extinctions, and alter precipitation patterns. There's not much time left to avert the worst of what is likely to happen to our planet's already endangered ecological health.
Al Gore deserves this award, and he deserves our respect and support for his efforts to wake up a somnolent world community.
What will be interesting in the next few days--aside from the inevitable speculation on whether or not he will now decide to run for President--will be how the right-wing attack machine will go into full assault mode in its endless efforts to deny climate change and smear Gore personally. The temperature is rising, and the polar ice caps are melting, yet the well-funded climate skeptics, encouraged by the Bush-Cheney junta, will do anything to protect the interests of the fossil-fuel trust.
Global climate change is probably the most pressing issue in the dismal history of the human species. Among other things, it will disrupt agriculture, raise sea levels, cause mass extinctions, and alter precipitation patterns. There's not much time left to avert the worst of what is likely to happen to our planet's already endangered ecological health.
Al Gore deserves this award, and he deserves our respect and support for his efforts to wake up a somnolent world community.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Honorable Interrogation
The Bush regime insists that torture is necessary to extract essential information from its prisoners. But not only is torture immoral and contrary to international law, it is not necessary for effective interrogation. That’s the claim made by several American interrogators from World War II who were recently honored at a ceremony near the nation’s capital.
“During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone,” said George Frenkel from Kensington, Virginia. “We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”
“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, an MIT physicist.
When Peter Weiss, a human rights and trademark lawyer from New York, went up to receive his award, he took the microphone and spoke his mind. “I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war.”
Read the whole article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html
“During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone,” said George Frenkel from Kensington, Virginia. “We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”
“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, an MIT physicist.
When Peter Weiss, a human rights and trademark lawyer from New York, went up to receive his award, he took the microphone and spoke his mind. “I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war.”
Read the whole article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Thank Candice Miller (Really)
Candice Miller is one of many Republicans who voted to expand the SCHIP program that provides health insurance for children from low-income families. The President vetoed that bill yesterday, and the vote to overturn the veto in the House of Representatives will be close. Go to this web site to let her know that you support her position and to encourage her to resist the inevitable White House Pressure to change it.
Friday, September 28, 2007
(Bush) = (War) - (Healthcare)
"Follow the money"--that's what a popular film a few years ago declared. That's how you find out what's really happening.
The Bush administration wants another $190 billion for its occupation of Iraq. If this request is funded, the continuing insanity in Iraq will cost 15% more in 2008 than it did in 2007 and be the single most costly year since the invasion began. (Click here.) So, do you believe the Whitehouse's claims about maybe beginning troop withdrawal next year? The money says, forget it.
Meanwhile, tough-guy Bush says he'll veto the bill Congress has passed to provide health care for American children. That bill would cost $7 billion per year for five years. For 2008, that means it would cost less than 4% of the price for the illegal Bush-Cheney occupation of Iraq. What more do we need to know about this administration's values? There's money for Blackwater mercenaries, but none for our children's health.
The Bush administration wants another $190 billion for its occupation of Iraq. If this request is funded, the continuing insanity in Iraq will cost 15% more in 2008 than it did in 2007 and be the single most costly year since the invasion began. (Click here.) So, do you believe the Whitehouse's claims about maybe beginning troop withdrawal next year? The money says, forget it.
Meanwhile, tough-guy Bush says he'll veto the bill Congress has passed to provide health care for American children. That bill would cost $7 billion per year for five years. For 2008, that means it would cost less than 4% of the price for the illegal Bush-Cheney occupation of Iraq. What more do we need to know about this administration's values? There's money for Blackwater mercenaries, but none for our children's health.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The MoveOn.org Ad
While Republicans and half the Democrats in the Senate go nuts over the now famous MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times, it's worth noting that the first place this pun on David Petraeus's name appeared was on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. I learned this on the invaluable Media Matters web site. Rush applied this term, "Betray Us," to Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, who had the audacity to vote for a Senate resolution opposing the "surge" in Iraq.
Right wingers can apparently insult our military men and women all they want, but if a progressive organization questions a General's enthusiastic endorsement of the illegal Bush-Cheney occupation of Iraq, all hell breaks loose. The Senate resolution condemning the MoveOn ad is just more Republican hypocrisy, aided and abetted by too many Democrats.
Right wingers can apparently insult our military men and women all they want, but if a progressive organization questions a General's enthusiastic endorsement of the illegal Bush-Cheney occupation of Iraq, all hell breaks loose. The Senate resolution condemning the MoveOn ad is just more Republican hypocrisy, aided and abetted by too many Democrats.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The cost of war holds our nation captive
In 1953, a Republican president and retired general announced to the nation the injustice of arms expenditures. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”
The Iraq War demonstrates the truth of President Eisenhower’s words. In the early years of this new century, we are squandering our common treasure on a war that did not have to happen.
The National Priorities Project calculates that the cost of the Iraq War for St. Clair County through the end of fiscal year 2007 has been $207.7 million. With money like that, we could afford a new jail, even an overpriced one, as well as a new library, and we would not consider cutting back on education and public services. We might even fund business start-ups that would produce jobs able to support a family. $207.7 million has been taken from St. Clair County to fund this war, yet this amount does not cover war expenses for even a single day.
The National Priorities Project also reports that the cost of war for Michigan’s Tenth Congressional District has been $938.58 million. For that amount, 160,000 children could have been provided with health care for the length of the Iraq War. Or 7500 units of affordable housing could have been built for people who needed homes. Or 85 elementary schools could have been constructed for the education of children. Our nation missed all these opportunities—in just one congressional district.
The cost of the Iraq War to date is at least $1.2 trillion. David Leonhardt of The New York Times calculates that this amount would cover a public health campaign unparalleled in our nation’s history as well as a global immunization campaign that would save the lives of millions of children. Money would still remain to cover preschool for every three and four year-old in this country, as well as help pay for the rebuilding of New Orleans. And still that staggering sum would not be exhausted, with plenty left for legitimate security expenses.
With every dollar spent on conflict in Iraq, we become less decent, less hopeful, less alive here at home. Occupation and civil war are bludgeoning Iraq to death. The United States is dying by inches, hardly remembering the just and joyous nation we could have become.
The Iraq War demonstrates the truth of President Eisenhower’s words. In the early years of this new century, we are squandering our common treasure on a war that did not have to happen.
The National Priorities Project calculates that the cost of the Iraq War for St. Clair County through the end of fiscal year 2007 has been $207.7 million. With money like that, we could afford a new jail, even an overpriced one, as well as a new library, and we would not consider cutting back on education and public services. We might even fund business start-ups that would produce jobs able to support a family. $207.7 million has been taken from St. Clair County to fund this war, yet this amount does not cover war expenses for even a single day.
The National Priorities Project also reports that the cost of war for Michigan’s Tenth Congressional District has been $938.58 million. For that amount, 160,000 children could have been provided with health care for the length of the Iraq War. Or 7500 units of affordable housing could have been built for people who needed homes. Or 85 elementary schools could have been constructed for the education of children. Our nation missed all these opportunities—in just one congressional district.
The cost of the Iraq War to date is at least $1.2 trillion. David Leonhardt of The New York Times calculates that this amount would cover a public health campaign unparalleled in our nation’s history as well as a global immunization campaign that would save the lives of millions of children. Money would still remain to cover preschool for every three and four year-old in this country, as well as help pay for the rebuilding of New Orleans. And still that staggering sum would not be exhausted, with plenty left for legitimate security expenses.
With every dollar spent on conflict in Iraq, we become less decent, less hopeful, less alive here at home. Occupation and civil war are bludgeoning Iraq to death. The United States is dying by inches, hardly remembering the just and joyous nation we could have become.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The Al Anbar Deception
For a good summary of how the charade of hearings in Washington last week is all smoke and mirrors, take a look at this article in Asia Times. The Sunni sheiks in Al Anbar have no interest whatever in propping up the Al Malaki government. They hate the Shiites, and they hate the Americans. It's a brief marriage of convenience, based largely on bribes and hyped to death by Petraeus and Crocker. It has no relevance to establishing stability in Baghdad or anywhere else in Iraq.
What's interesting about the hearings is the depressing fact that not one Democrat, including several who want to be President, asked a probing question or tried seriously to expose the shallowness of Petraeus's claims. As Frank Rich points out in today's New York Times, the only Senator to score a valid hit on Bush's puppets was Republican John Warner, who asked whether the occupation of Iraq had made America any safer. When Petraeus was unable to insist that it had, that told us all we need to know.
As bloggers and journalists all around the world have told us, Bush has no strategy. All he plans to do is keep the occupation going and dump it in the lap of whoever succeeds him. How many Americans have to die to while he denies his colossal error? How many Iraqis?
What's interesting about the hearings is the depressing fact that not one Democrat, including several who want to be President, asked a probing question or tried seriously to expose the shallowness of Petraeus's claims. As Frank Rich points out in today's New York Times, the only Senator to score a valid hit on Bush's puppets was Republican John Warner, who asked whether the occupation of Iraq had made America any safer. When Petraeus was unable to insist that it had, that told us all we need to know.
As bloggers and journalists all around the world have told us, Bush has no strategy. All he plans to do is keep the occupation going and dump it in the lap of whoever succeeds him. How many Americans have to die to while he denies his colossal error? How many Iraqis?
Friday, September 14, 2007
Gen. Patraeus’s boss, Admiral William Fallon, opposed the surge in Iraq.
Sent in by Rachael S.
Fallon also called Petraeus “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” (sounds like the Bush administration to me!) The Washington Post reported September 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to the “bad relations” between them is “the understatement of the century.”
Why didn’t the Foreign Affairs Committee question Fallon? Please click on this link to read the entire article, then call congress. Demand answers as to why they didn’t interview Fallon. Insist that they take his comments under advisement.
Carl Levin 202-224-6221
Candice Miller 202-225-2106 Washington Office, 586-997-5010 Shelby Office
Debbie Stabenow 202-224-4822
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
Fallon also called Petraeus “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” (sounds like the Bush administration to me!) The Washington Post reported September 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to the “bad relations” between them is “the understatement of the century.”
Why didn’t the Foreign Affairs Committee question Fallon? Please click on this link to read the entire article, then call congress. Demand answers as to why they didn’t interview Fallon. Insist that they take his comments under advisement.
Carl Levin 202-224-6221
Candice Miller 202-225-2106 Washington Office, 586-997-5010 Shelby Office
Debbie Stabenow 202-224-4822
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The Michigan Budget Crisis
There's a terrific editorial" in today's Free Press on what's wrong with the Michigan budget: the quick answer to that question is one word, "prisons." The more complicated answer is that the Republicans in the State Senate obstinately refuse to admit the fact that the Michigan prison system is dysfunctional and extravagantly wasteful.
Consider these facts, all found in this must-read editorial:
* Michigan spends more on prisons than it does on higher education.
* In 1980 one in 20 employees of the state civil service worked in prisons; today the number is one out of three.
* The incarceration rate in Michigan is, on average, 40% higher than in the seven other Great Lakes states, all of which report lower crime rates.
What's the Republican plan? Same as always: cut funding, outsource, privatize--with absolutely no evidence that these will accomplish anything useful. In fact, one place where privatization was tried, medical services, turned out to be a complete disaster, bringing "national shame," "negligent care," "unnecessary suffering and deaths."
The Free Press editors provide a long list of steps that Michigan could take to make our prisons more efficient: these include re-examining sentencing guidelines, better oversight of the State Parole Board, and more humane treatment of offenders with mental illness. All of these would make for a better and cheaper prison system, and all are opposed by Republicans in the Senate, who routinely spread distorted, deceptive claims calculated to play on people's fears and ignorance.
Michigan faces an enormous budget crisis, and the Republicans in the Senate are doing everything they can to obstruct realistic, humane efforts to address it.
Consider these facts, all found in this must-read editorial:
* Michigan spends more on prisons than it does on higher education.
* In 1980 one in 20 employees of the state civil service worked in prisons; today the number is one out of three.
* The incarceration rate in Michigan is, on average, 40% higher than in the seven other Great Lakes states, all of which report lower crime rates.
What's the Republican plan? Same as always: cut funding, outsource, privatize--with absolutely no evidence that these will accomplish anything useful. In fact, one place where privatization was tried, medical services, turned out to be a complete disaster, bringing "national shame," "negligent care," "unnecessary suffering and deaths."
The Free Press editors provide a long list of steps that Michigan could take to make our prisons more efficient: these include re-examining sentencing guidelines, better oversight of the State Parole Board, and more humane treatment of offenders with mental illness. All of these would make for a better and cheaper prison system, and all are opposed by Republicans in the Senate, who routinely spread distorted, deceptive claims calculated to play on people's fears and ignorance.
Michigan faces an enormous budget crisis, and the Republicans in the Senate are doing everything they can to obstruct realistic, humane efforts to address it.
BlueNovember.Org gets SiCKO
On Saturday, September 8, 2007, members of BlueNovember.Org joined many of their St. Clair County neighbors for popcorn and a movie. Not just any movie. They watched SiCKO.
Just two weeks earlier, BlueNovember.Org held a "We're SiCKO Waiting" rally in front of Krafft 8, calling on both theater management and movie patrons to work to get this important documentary shown in our community.
Matt Bieth, Krafft 8 manager, deserves praise and thanks for keeping his promise to contact the owner of Krafft 8 and request SiCKO.
SiCKO is an instrument of truth about more than our disastrous national health care problems; it is a message about how our American culture has been shaped into a construct of millions of MEs instead of one US. Let us now be courageous, work together, and demand change not only for health care, but also for the mentality that got us here in the first place.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Rolling Stone looks at Iraq profiteering Gone Wild
Sent in by Rachael
Although this article is long, it is a must read. It outlines how incompetent, corrupt and greed-driven this administration really is. This should outrage you not only as tax payers but as Americans. This administration is determined to bankrupt our country, and this article is probably just the tip! As the article states, "What is happening in Iraq goes beyond inefficiency and beyond fraud. This is about a business of government being corrupted by profit motive to such an extraordinary degree, that we really need to wonder how we will ever be able to depend on the state to do its job in the future."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle
Although this article is long, it is a must read. It outlines how incompetent, corrupt and greed-driven this administration really is. This should outrage you not only as tax payers but as Americans. This administration is determined to bankrupt our country, and this article is probably just the tip! As the article states, "What is happening in Iraq goes beyond inefficiency and beyond fraud. This is about a business of government being corrupted by profit motive to such an extraordinary degree, that we really need to wonder how we will ever be able to depend on the state to do its job in the future."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
